THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 210572 and 210584. July 15, 2020.]
DIAMOND FARMS AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE (DARBMUPCO), petitioner,vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MINDANAO STATION, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 15, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 210572 and 210584 (Diamond Farms Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Multi-purpose Cooperative (DARBMUPCO) v. Court of Appeals, Mindanao Station, et al.) — This Petition for Certiorari1 arose out of a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Money Claims filed by ninety-five (95) workers against petitioner Diamond Farms Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Multi-purpose Cooperative (DARBMUPCO).
The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision 2 finding petitioner liable for illegally terminating eighty-nine (89) of the respondents who were hired through a labor-only contractor.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Fifth Division, Cagayan de Oro City, modified the decision of the LA and held that petitioner had authorized cause to terminate the eighty-nine (89) employees, but failed only to observe due process in effecting their dismissal. 3 Their Motion for Reconsideration having been denied, respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On May 31, 2013, the CA promulgated its Decision 4 finding the eighty-nine (89) respondents to have been illegally dismissed and remanding the case to the LA to determine the monetary liabilities of petitioner. The CA subsequently denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner through its October 17, 2013 Resolution. 5
Aggrieved, petitioner filed the present Petition for Certiorari on the ground that the CA gravely abused its discretion when it: (1) failed to recognize the payments made by petitioner to seventy-eight (78) respondents who signed individual waivers; (2) reversed the decision of the NLRC; and (3) affirmed that respondents were illegally dismissed. 6
We partly grant the petition.
Decisions, final orders, or resolutions of the CA may only be reviewed through an Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This holds true even if the error ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in the decision, order or resolution. The existence and availability of the right of appeal prohibits the resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for the latter remedy is that there should be no appeal. 7
In here, petitioner received the October 17, 2013 Resolution of the CA on November 7, 2013. Accordingly, petitioner had fifteen (15) days or until November 22, 2013 to file an Appeal by Certiorari with the Court. However, petitioner allowed this period to expire without sufficient reason and instead filed a Petition for Certiorari on January 21, 2014. Clearly this petition is a mere substitute for a lost appeal and should be dismissed in this regard.
However, petitioner maintains that the CA disregarded the quitclaims signed by seventy-eight (78) of the respondents which should have exonerated the petitioner from further liability.
The Court partly agrees with petitioner.
Indeed, not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against public policy, except (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or (2) where the terms of settlement are unconscionable on their faces; in these cases, the law will step in to annul the questionable transactions. Such quitclaims are regarded as ineffective to bar the workers from claiming the full measure of their legal rights. 8
The Court notes that some respondents individually signed a Receipt and Quitclaim 9 and received payments that ranged from P7,264.36 to P19,104.70. These amounts appear to be grossly disproportionate compared to the Computation of Award 10 by the LA in the March 26, 2007 Decision which showed that respondents should receive amounts ranging from P108,377.16 to P126,509.51. 11
In view of the unconscionable and substantial difference between the amounts received by the respondents who signed the Receipt and Quitclaim and the initial computation made by the LA, We rule such quitclaims as ineffectual and unable to bar respondents from pursuing their claims against the petitioner. 12
Finally, the principle of unjust enrichment must be held applicable to labor cases as well. 13 Hence, regardless of the inefficacy of the quitclaims, the amounts that respondents had received as consideration for signing the quitclaims should be deducted from their respective monetary awards. 14
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to PARTIALLY GRANT the Petition for Certiorari. The May 31, 2013 Decision and October 17, 2013 Resolution rendered by the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the settlement amount received by the respondents by virtue of the waivers, shall be DEDUCTED from their total monetary awards. The monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. RULES OF COURT, Rule 65.
2.Rollo, pp. 93-104.
3.Id. at 300-314.
4.Id. at 58-84; penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring.
5.Id. at 85-90.
6.Id. at 24.
7.Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 716 Phil. 500-501 (2013).
8.Mindoro Lumber and Hardware v. Bacay, 498 Phil. 752 (2005).
9. CA records, pp. 451-480; 813-816.
10.Rollo, pp. 101-103.
11.Id.
12. See Mindoro Lumber and Hardware v. Bacay, supra note 8.
13.Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. v. Gallo, 299 Phil. 699, 710 (1994) citing Olacao v. National Labor Relations Commission, 257 Phil. 878, 889 (1989).
14.Emco Plywood Corp. v. Abelgas, 471 Phil. 460, 483 (2004).